McKinney vs. Rove

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GoSlash27

New member
Comparing the responses within these two threads

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213631
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213325

I can't help but notice the difference in responses on this forum.
You folks are gonna need a kickstand if you try to lean anymore right.

Carrying the comment over from another thread where this comparison was banned :rolleyes: for being off topic (!)
It was mentioned that there appears to be no evidence that Rove committed perjury. In fact, that's not true. It is an established fact that he gave incorrect and conflicting testimony to the grand jury on multiple occasions. The federal prosecutor decided to not seek an indictment because he didn't feel he had enough evidence. This is not the same thing as being acquitted.
McKinney, otoh, has *zero* evidence on her side. We all know she assaulted a Capitol cop in the course of his duties. Why did the GJ fail to hand down an indictment? Who knows? Folks have screamed 'racism' but does anybody know what the makeup of the GJ was?

All I see is a pair of self-serving political worms who got off.

If you're non-partisan like me, there's little difference between the two cases.
The system worked as designed. Justice was not served.
 
Incorrect and conflicting testimony, as we learned from Bill Clinton and other Leftists over the years, is NOT perjury. Of course, in Rove's case, there really wasn't even an issue. He was not indicted because, as you note, there was no evidence(call it insufficient if you want, since none is insufficient) and never was. just a mad effort by the left to convince people some dire thing had been committed.

OTOH McKinney avoided the indictment by backroom bargaining and a general fear of the race-baiting nuttiness she would cause. But we all know she's guilty and, well, that probably makes the left even nuttier.
 
What's so wrong with leaning towards the party that we feel best protects our rights? For the record, I wear platforms on the right foot and normal shoes on the left. Helps keep me upright.:D
 
For a fellow to claim he's NON partisan, you sure have a problem with other people who enjoy being on the right side.

What are you going to do this fall goslash when we maintain control of the house and senate:D
 
I am having a hard time making the comparison you ask about. I am unaware of any physical evidence or witnesses in the Rove case. Rove is not an elected official.

I may be able to better compare the cases of Delay and/or Lott to the McKinney case.

McKinney's jury was picked from the same jury pool who re-elected Barry, she was not indicted for the same reasons Barry was re-elected, IMO.
 
Who did she 'back room bargain' with? Every member of the grand jury?
Click to expand...

McKinney's jury was picked from the same jury pool who re-elected Barry, she was not indicted for the same reasons Barry was re-elected, IMO.
Click to expand...

Just remember, the grand jury only hears what the prosecutor wants them to hear and they base their decisions on what they were allowed to hear.
 
Right....so Wainstein is corrupt? :rolleyes:
Let's see....what was the last comment in the Rove thread? Ah. Here it is:
"Oh wait, I know, Fitzgeralds corrupt. Right? Well it wont be long till some leftist says so. I'll betcha!"

So it's okay to call the Federal prosecutor corrupt in the McKinney case, but not the Rove case? I don't suppose that you could be objective enough to consider the idea that neither one of them is corrupt?

Let's review:
Wainstein: Commented about the case attacking McKinney in the press on several occasions. Brought it before the Grand Jury. Lost. Released a statement supporting the officer.
I'm supposed to believe that this guy was cooperating with McKinney?

Fitzgerald: Did not attack Rove in the press. Did not bring it before the grand jury. Did not comment afterwards.
So if anybody were potentially tainted it'd be him.
 
Wainstein had no choice, since there is no doubt McKinney is guilty and needed to be charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to 27 life terms(26 of them just for her hair). He had to keep up public appearances even as he was purchased for two candy bars and a trip to the zoo by McKinney's multiplicity of lackeys.

Fitzgerald, OTOH, had no case and every non-partisan knew it. What was there to say in that situation? :D

Seriously, fine, blame it all on the jury. Certainly a jury of her "peers", eh? If that makes you feel better that's fine. The point remains, however, that McKinney should have been prosecuted, you would have and so would I, while the Rove case was a media driven circus with no evidence at all. Fundamentally different issues.
 
Goslash:

Rove was investigated because SOMEONE leaked Plame's name. Investigation was to find out who. Rove made some conflicting statements. Intentionally or faulty memory? Probably both, he is a political operative and they all view and spin EVERYthing they do through a political filter but who remembers every detail of a year or more old conversation?

McKinney may have assaulted a police officer. There are multiple witnesses and, apparently, video.

The difference I see is this: An "ordinary citizen" would have been treated closer to the way Rove was than McKinney. A GJ might accept your explanation that you mispoke or misremembered. However, if you blew past a security checkpoint and shoved, even "gently" a police officer, you would be slammed.
 
Mike,
McKinney *Definitely* assaulted a cop. There's no question about it. And I agree about the Rove thing. It's not really a question of whether he lied so much as whether it can be proven.
I don't think we as average citizens would have been treated anywhere near as well as either of these two characters. Heck, I'll throw in Jefferson (D), DeLay (R)....and so many others I can't keep track.

2nd,
The constituency of D.C. has nothing to lose or gain from releasing a congresscritter from Georgia. I don't know what went on in that courtroom and I suspect you don't either, but I feel confident saying that Special Prosecutors don't go around losing cases before Grand Juries just for the heck of it. After all, he might have won accidentally. Couldn't have that, now could we?
You're speculating. They let her go and that's that.
 
Goslash: This might be a little deep, but just do your best with it: Got any idea what the demographics of D.C. are?

How could you possibly know what Rove told a grand jury? You don't have a clue.
 
Goslash: This might be a little deep, but just do your best with it: Got any idea what the demographics of D.C. are?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, I do. If you've got a point to make then spit it out.

How could you possibly know what Rove told a grand jury?
Click to expand...
I might also ask the same question about McKinney and your "knowledge" of how the demographics play into it.
But to answer your question directly, all it takes is a quick GIS of "Rove Grand Jury Testimony".
Sure, it could all be the dreaded 'liberal media'......but he made all those trips for some reason, didn't he? Somehow I don't think it's just because they liked his company.
 
Goslash: Your understanding of the Real World is underwhelming. Your understanding of what goes on in a grand jury session is infantile. You can't Google up accurate reports of what Rove testified to before the grand jury. D.C. is as far removed from life in Iowa as when Dorothy realized that she wasn't in Kansas anymore. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top